We have OIC-specific changes to tinyDTLS that we should not lose, so we should not drop our version. I didn't participate in those changes but I know they are there and required to meet OIC Security Spec.
Thiago I wasn't aware we had resolved the TinyDTLS licensing issues... that's good to know that we can upstream without concern. The Spec Coordination Security meeting is tonight; I'll ask if anyone who is familiar with the changes can drive upstreaming. Thanks, Nathan -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 12:12 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Tinydtls Fork On ter?a-feira, 8 de mar?o de 2016 17:04:25 PST Otavio Pontes wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am working in the OIC implementation of Soletta library and I > realized that the tinydtls library imported in iotivity repository has > some patches applied to it, adding important features used by iotivity > security, such as dtls_enables_anon_ecdh function. > > Is there any plan to have those patches applied upstream? Or a plan to > maintain a public fork of tinydtls, outside of the iotivity > repository, compatible with OIC requirements? I saw that there is one > branch called iotivity in tinydtls repository, but the patches needed > are not committed to that branch too. The patches need to be upstreamed, we need to drop our copy and we need to upgrade to the latest upstream. Anything else is not acceptable. PS: on the tinydtls licence, we had a confusion of which licence(s) applied. It turns out that it's dual-licensed under both the EPL and the EDL. The latter licence is compatible with our needs. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
